Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncle Max

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. But I will restore the content to anyone who wants to merge this (to an article that exists to merge it to) W.marsh 15:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncle Max

Uncle Max (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Minor fictional character. No notability. No list to merge with. Content is just a plot summary and picture. 650l2520 00:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. He is a character in a movie, but I think it would do better if a List of characters from the Lion King series was created. bibliomaniac15 01:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Can be recreated as part of a list of Lion King characters per WP:FICT should someone care to create one. Otto4711 01:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - unsourced and non-notable fancruft and/or original research. No assertion of real world significance. Merely a plot summary. MER-C 02:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per MER-C. Edeans 04:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep and merge as per bibliomaniac --Jack Jones 11 11:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep and merge as per bibliomaniac Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• He is a character in a movie? There is a character in Pretty Woman called "man getting out of elevator." Does he warrant an article? -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment That sort of arguement is flawed; that if an article for subject x doesn't exists, why should an article on subject y? Every subject has its own notability, or lack thereof, regardless of something that's related in some minor way. SuperDT 22:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course I agree with you. I am pointing out the flawed nature of the original keep vote, which is just a variation on "it exists, keep it." This does not advance an argument for notability. Similarly, "we have X, therefore we can have Y" is just as flawed as "we don't have x, therefore we can't have y."-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

My fault, I misread your comment. SuperDT 05:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into a list for Lion King characters of some sort. SuperDT 22:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, and per MER-C. WMMartin 16:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, do not redirect. This was not the only film to have an "Uncle Max", and I doubt it would be a search term in any event. Agent 86 01:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.